# So who do you think will get the Dem nomination?



## vraiblonde

There are a lot of longshots, but I really don't think it will be Bernie or Uncle Joe.  They almost can't nominate an old white guy - that's too easy a target for Trump to pick off.

Currently they're all writing their own opposition campaign ads; as in, their behavior is being documented and will be whittled down to a :30 ad on why we shouldn't vote for them, paid for by Trump 2020, "I'm President Trump and I approve this message".  I don't see any way for any of them to get out of it.

The Kavanaugh thing will hurt them.
The Jussie Smollett thing will hurt them.
"Russian Collusion" will hurt them.

They also have to get through the primary debates and rip each other to shreds, which I cannot wait for!

So who has been quietest, and therefore made themselves a smaller target?  Because that's who the Dems are going to have to go with.


----------



## stgislander

The bigger question to me is who'll be left standing after Iowa and New Hampshire (and to a lesser extent Nevada and South Carolina).

My guess is Uncle Joe, Kamala, and Bernie.  Cory and Robert Francis are maybes.


----------



## Ken King

No one will have the requisite number of delegates at the convention and they will draft Hillary.


----------



## NextJen

Larry Hogan.


----------



## USWWarrior

LOL at Hogan, but I get it. 

This is an interesting question because it is so far out. No one had Trump winning the republican nomination when there was what 14? 15?

My bet is they will go with dependable Uncle Joe who unfortunately may use his wife's and sons death to his benefit. I see him distancing himself from the greatest (and only) Muslim President ever to help his cause. He will become the stabilizing force for the party. I also see him negotiating behind the scenes to include one of the others as his running mate to get the support of the far far leftist. (Gillibrand or Klobuchar to get the Ladies votes? or Castro/Beto to get the Hispanic vote)

Now to be honest, I hope it is Kamila or Bernie. Trump in a landslide.

I still think Trump's biggest fear is not the Democrats, it is another third (or fourth in this case)  party candidate like an independent Kasich.

Hopefully I am not foolish, but Hillary is politically dead. 

Booker, Harris and Gabbard will make noise early but will fade.


----------



## Yooper

Kamala Harris. Hands down. The country, as a whole, may not get behind her, but the Dems will and will hope the country does too.

Beto - ahem, Robert Francis O'Rourke - as V.P. to balance the ticket (black-ish/white, female/male-ish, immigrant child/wanna be immigrant, California/Texas, sex gold-digger/DUI dirt eater, Michelle Obama channeler/Ted Kennedy channeler, etc. & so forth).

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## CPUSA

An absolute nut bag loser.
Name doesn't matter...


----------



## black dog

vraiblonde said:


> So who has been quietest, and therefore made themselves a smaller target?  Because that's who the Dems are going to have to go with.



 Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Grumpy

Yooper said:


> Kamala Harris. Hands down.



I said that a few months ago, I believe before she even threw her hat into the ring. I'm more sure of it now than back then.


----------



## SamSpade

Once the pack thins out before the caucuses - Hillary will announce.


----------



## BOP

vraiblonde said:


> There are a lot of longshots, but I really don't think it will be Bernie or Uncle Joe.  They almost can't nominate an old white guy - that's too easy a target for Trump to pick off.
> 
> Currently they're all writing their own opposition campaign ads; as in, their behavior is being documented and will be whittled down to a :30 ad on why we shouldn't vote for them, paid for by Trump 2020, "I'm President Trump and I approve this message".  I don't see any way for any of them to get out of it.
> 
> The Kavanaugh thing will hurt them.
> The Jussie Smollett thing will hurt them.
> "Russian Collusion" will hurt them.
> 
> They also have to get through the primary debates and rip each other to shreds, which I cannot wait for!
> 
> So who has been quietest, and therefore made themselves a smaller target?  Because that's who the Dems are going to have to go with.


Mooch, 2020.


----------



## Hijinx

At this time I am going to go with Kamilla Harris. She is what they are looking for, a black woman who will win California and New York, hands down.
Forget her past and Willie Brown. Sex doesn't enter into the equation any longer.
Clinton and Hillary's  and Trumps sexual romps have made any sexual histories ineffective.


----------



## Merlin99

BOP said:


> Mooch, 2020.



This is my guess also.


----------



## TCROW

The better question is: who cares? 

The ruling class will always get their way. Whatever the letter behind their name, they will work to denigrate the opposing letter-behind-the-name. They will continue to divide the people of this great nation (which has always been great). 

They will continue to manufacture crises, which will serve to divide and conquer the people. The demonrats will continue paint the repugs as fascists/nazis and socialists and commies the repugs will call the demonrats. 

And the middle class gets smaller as the bell curve seems like it wants to invert. 

Accordingly, we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is still a march towards evil. Lucid, cogent, and concise liberty-minded posters and people like Chris will be marginalized and ridiculed. And large swaths of the population will wonder why things never change.


----------



## Bann

I don't know.  It seems like Kamala Harris is going to give it a good run, but I really don't think she's all that bright, to be honest.  

I can't see Hillary going quietly into the night - I expect her to pop back up sometime.


----------



## BOP

TCROW said:


> The better question is: who cares?
> 
> The ruling class will always get their way. Whatever the letter behind their name, they will work to denigrate the opposing letter-behind-the-name. They will continue to divide the people of this great nation (which has always been great).
> 
> They will continue to manufacture crises, which will serve to divide and conquer the people. The demonrats will continue paint the repugs as fascists/nazis and socialists and commies the repugs will call the demonrats.
> 
> And the middle class gets smaller as the bell curve seems like it wants to invert.
> 
> Accordingly, we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is still a march towards evil. Lucid, cogent, and concise liberty-minded posters and people like Chris will be marginalized and ridiculed. And large swaths of the population will wonder why things never change.


Pretty much.


----------



## BOP

Bann said:


> I don't know.  It seems like Kamala Harris is going to give it a good run, but I really don't think she's all that bright, to be honest.
> 
> I can't see Hillary going quietly into the night - I expect her to pop back up sometime.


My bigger concern is who is going to fill the Trump shoes after 2024.  Will Crenshaw be eligible?


----------



## PsyOps

I have no idea; but it will be entertaining to watch the battle for how far left they will go.


----------



## Kyle

AOC



She'll "identify" as being 35.


----------



## TCROW

Kyle said:


> AOC
> 
> 
> 
> She'll "identify" as being 35.



Perhaps one day, you'll identify as having a brain.


----------



## Kyle

TCROW said:


> Perhaps one day, you'll identify as having a brain.




Poor Sadpussi... Your IQ test came back negative again didn't it!


----------



## stgislander

BOP said:


> My bigger concern is who is going to fill the Trump shoes after 2024.  Will Crenshaw be eligible?


I'm thinking Nikki Haley.


----------



## CPUSA

TCROW said:


> The better question is: who cares?
> 
> The ruling class will always get their way. Whatever the letter behind their name, they will work to denigrate the opposing letter-behind-the-name. They will continue to divide the people of this great nation (which has always been great).
> 
> They will continue to manufacture crises, which will serve to divide and conquer the people. The demonrats will continue paint the repugs as fascists/nazis and socialists and commies the repugs will call the demonrats.
> 
> And the middle class gets smaller as the bell curve seems like it wants to invert.
> 
> Accordingly, we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is still a march towards evil. Lucid, cogent, and concise liberty-minded posters and people like Chris will be marginalized and ridiculed. And large swaths of the population will wonder why things never change.


WTF????
Is this your 1 day a year to actually attempt to sound reasonable?

Have you been diagnosed with something terminal?...making things right with God & all?
Who is this and what have you done with Sadpussi!?!?!?!


----------



## This_person

TCROW said:


> The better question is: who cares?
> 
> The ruling class will always get their way. Whatever the letter behind their name, they will work to denigrate the opposing letter-behind-the-name. They will continue to divide the people of this great nation (which has always been great).



You just described the exact reason people support Trump.  EXACTLY the reason.



> They will continue to manufacture crises, which will serve to divide and conquer the people. The demonrats will continue paint the repugs as fascists/nazis and socialists and commies the repugs will call the demonrats.



Good reason to end political parties' control of our government.



> And the middle class gets smaller as the bell curve seems like it wants to invert.



Interesting side note to this:  It seems the main reason for a shrinking middle class is that the upper class is growing.  Yeah, people are moving on up to the East Side, to a DEEE-lux apartment in the sky.



> Accordingly, we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is still a march towards evil. Lucid, cogent, and concise liberty-minded posters and people like Chris will be marginalized and ridiculed. And large swaths of the population will wonder why things never change.


It's good that you demonstrated a difference between lucid, cogent, and concise liberty-minded posters, like myself, and people like Chris.  I like Chris, and think he makes sense sometimes, but I have seen an awful lot that shows me he is not always cogent in his support of liberty-minded topics.

If Libertarians got off the "legalize pot" bandwagon - make it number 11 so it's not in your top-ten list - people might take them more seriously.


----------



## This_person

TCROW said:


> Perhaps one day, you'll identify as having a brain.


The point is valid, though.  Obama proved that one does not actually have to demonstrate they meet the Constitutional requirements for the presidency, they just have to say they do.  Not a single legal battle resulted in him ever having to prove he was born in the US.  In no legal way did he ever do that.

Just to point out, I have very little doubt he was born in HI.  It just seems the most likely thing.  But he never proved it and was never required to prove it even though multiple court systems were asked to ask him to do just that.  The courts pretty much all ruled that they could not make him prove it, so they didn't.

If Vlad Putin came over here and said he was a citizen, if AOC says she's 35, and a national party let them on their ticket, they'd be on and votes for them would be valid, and the courts have proven they will not do a damned thing to stop it.


----------



## vraiblonde

The media realizes the declared Dem crop are a pack of losers, so they're fawning all over Pete Bootyjudge right now.  #1, he's openly gay with a husband - that always turns them on - and #2, he bangs with the gang but isn't obnoxious about it.  He comes across as likeable while he's advocating stripping us of our rights as American citizens.

He's largely unknown, so they can turn him into whatever they want (just like they did with Barack Obama).  He also reminds me - and I can't be alone in this - of Ben Wyatt from _Parks and Recreation_.  He could pull the half dozen or so moderate Democrats still hanging in there back into the fold, and could be a palatable option for Never-Trump Republicans.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

NextJen said:


> Larry Hogan.



I don't understand this line of thinking. You want Hogan to be a hard-line Republican......in Maryland? He never would have won, twice, had he been one.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

To answer the question in the OP. I think Cory Booker. As much as it pains me to say.

That is, unless Biden decides to jump in the clown car.


----------



## glhs837

Harris/Biden 2020. Because Uncle Joe has already raised one baby President and didnt do bad (in the eyes of those who will vote D). It's her turn, ya know. We can only prove are not all Trumps racist puppets by electing a black woman.


----------



## glhs837

Chris0nllyn said:


> To answer the question in the OP. I think Cory Booker. As much as it pains me to say.
> 
> That is, unless Biden decides to jump in the clown car.





Chris0nllyn said:


> To answer the question in the OP. I think Cory Booker. As much as it pains me to say.
> 
> That is, unless Biden decides to jump in the clown car.



Nah, he makes Kamala look like a super genius. He's really the new Hank Johnson.


----------



## TCROW

This_person said:


> If Libertarians got off the "legalize pot" bandwagon - make it number 11 so it's not in your top-ten list - people might take them more seriously.



This is what I see as the problem, encapsulated in this paragraph. Once you stop seeing it as a “legalize pot” bandwagon and instead as a pro-individual, pro-liberty bandwagon you’ll do much better understanding the libertarian framework. 

Pot is an easy thing to rally behind because public sentiment is changing and it’s easy to get noticed talking about it. 

But the key is that it’s not about pot per se.


----------



## This_person

TCROW said:


> This is what I see as the problem, encapsulated in this paragraph. Once you stop seeing it as a “legalize pot” bandwagon and instead as a pro-individual, pro-liberty bandwagon you’ll do much better understanding the libertarian framework.
> 
> Pot is an easy thing to rally behind because public sentiment is changing and it’s easy to get noticed talking about it.
> 
> But the key is that it’s not about pot per se.


If it's not about pot, stop talking about why pot should be legalized.

In the past, people were against putting fluoride in drinking water.  It had nothing to do with fluoride, it had EVERYTHING to do with the government providing drugs to citizens "because the government knows you need it."  The argument was quickly turned into how the liberty-lovers were actually saying fluoride was somehow bad, because the liberty-lovers were stupid in how they framed their argument.

It's very easy to suggest Libertarians are talking specifically about pot because Libertarians talk specifically about pot.  If they were to frame their argument that meth and fentanyl and heroin and cocaine should be legalized, everyone would turn against them, which is yet another reason to suggest the real issue to libertarians is pot, not liberty.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> It's good that you demonstrated a difference between lucid, cogent, and concise liberty-minded posters, like myself, and people like Chris.  I like Chris, and think he makes sense sometimes, but I have seen an awful lot that shows me he is not always cogent in his support of liberty-minded topics.
> 
> If Libertarians got off the "legalize pot" bandwagon - make it number 11 so it's not in your top-ten list - people might take them more seriously.



Because I don't feel like I fit into any specific mold. Hence me being a Libertarian. But there's Libertarian principals I don't agree with. And some I may agree with in principal, but the reality is that they are not conducive to today's politics.

That "bandwagon" is already rolling and marijuana is being legalized across the Country with no Libertarians making that decision for them. 

The Libertarian Party has a host of issues they feel strongly about. I bet you and many Republicans would agree with some of them. 
Individualism, opposition to govt. censorship, privacy, govt. out of personal relationships (gay marriage), victimless or consentual "crimes" such as drug use (all drugs, not just marijuana), prostitution, and gambling, self defense (2nd Amendment), property rights (anti-eminent domain), free markets, no govt. debt, and a strong national DEFENSE, among others.

Legalizing marijuana is a small portion of Libertarianism and quite frankly that's something I expect to hear from a host of others on this forum that clearly don't wish to seak out information on their own. Not from someone who is capable of having intellectual debates. 

If you assume that marijuana legalization is a major platform topic for Libertarians, then Libertarianism is already taking over the 2/3rds of the Country that hasd legalized marijuana in some capacity. Americans know the govt. is wrong on that topic and are simply unwilling to do anything to change their cash cow. Let's at least be honest and ackowledge the fact that most of the Democrats running for President are for legaliztion and it's not solely a Libertarian platform.

For a party that gets ridiculed for its lack of voting bloc, a large number of people get a hard on for this one, single, platform topic that appears to be pretty popular across the Country.


----------



## Hijinx

This_person said:


> The point is valid, though.  Obama proved that one does not actually have to demonstrate they meet the Constitutional requirements for the presidency, they just have to say they do.  Not a single legal battle resulted in him ever having to prove he was born in the US.  In no legal way did he ever do that.
> 
> Just to point out, I have very little doubt he was born in HI.  It just seems the most likely thing.  But he never proved it and was never required to prove it even though multiple court systems were asked to ask him to do just that.  The courts pretty much all ruled that they could not make him prove it, so they didn't.
> 
> If Vlad Putin came over here and said he was a citizen, if AOC says she's 35, and a national party let them on their ticket, they'd be on and votes for them would be valid, and the courts have proven they will not do a damned thing to stop it.


The question has never been answered was he a foreign aid student call Barry Soetoro at Columbia University, and why does no one who went there know him?


----------



## Monello

Hijinx said:


> The question has never been answered was he a foreign aid student call Barry Soetoro at Columbia University, and why does no one who went there know him?


He took online classes in the early 1980s.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Hijinx said:


> The question has never been answered was he a foreign aid student call Barry Soetoro at Columbia University, and why does no one who went there know him?


Columbia wrote about him:


> Barack Obama '83 became the first College alumnus to be elected President of the United States.


http://www.college.columbia.edu/news/barack-obama-83-becomes-first-college-alumnus-to-win-presidency

A room mate of his wrote this in 2009:


> Iwas Barack Obama ’83’s roommate at Columbia College in fall 1981. I met him in 1979, when we were freshmen at Occidental College (Oxy) in Los Angeles and our dorm rooms were directly opposite each other.


https://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/archive/jan_feb09/alumni_corner


----------



## Yooper

Current conspiracy theorists are positing Smollett got off due to pressures that were concerned if it went to trial Kamala Harris would be implicated somehow.

Love reading the conspiracies theories (why I haven't put Tranny on "ignore"), but having a hard time seeing any "negative" association with Smollett and Harris. Unless Smollett is Willie Brown's and Harris' love child.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## NextJen

Chris0nllyn said:


> I don't understand this line of thinking. You want Hogan to be a hard-line Republican......in Maryland? He never would have won, twice, had he been one.


I guess I was wrong in thinking that I really didn't need to add the sarcasm icon.


----------



## Yooper

NextJen said:


> I guess I was wrong in thinking that I really didn't need to add the sarcasm icon.


Yup.

Hogan the Maryland Republican could only be marketed nationwide as a moderate Dem. Couldn't describe the sorry state of Maryland (pun intended) any better.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Chris0nllyn

NextJen said:


> I guess I was wrong in thinking that I really didn't need to add the sarcasm icon.



You were. 

Some folks on here do believe he's basically a Democrat.


----------



## Lurk

USWWarrior said:


> LOL at Hogan, but I get it.
> 
> This is an interesting question because it is so far out. No one had Trump winning the republican nomination when there was what 14? 15?
> 
> My bet is they will go with dependable Uncle Joe who unfortunately may use his wife's and sons death to his benefit. I see him distancing himself from the greatest (and only) Muslim President ever to help his cause. He will become the stabilizing force for the party. I also see him negotiating behind the scenes to include one of the others as his running mate to get the support of the far far leftist. (Gillibrand or Klobuchar to get the Ladies votes? or Castro/Beto to get the Hispanic vote)
> 
> Now to be honest, I hope it is Kamila or Bernie. Trump in a landslide.



You don't think the Democratic Socialists will splinter off and make Bern their "He was screwed in 2016, don't screw him again!" candidate?


----------



## stgislander

It's his time.

(Where have I heard that before?)


----------



## happyazz

Jerry Brown


----------



## Yooper

PJ Media had a short report today linking to an article from _The State_ (link: "U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris racks up early SC endorsements for 2020 run") that Harris cleaned up BIG in SC with five significant endorsements.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## vraiblonde

I hate to say it, but I think Barack Obama screwed over any black person who runs for POTUS.  It shouldn't be that way, but it is.  Obama was so afrocentric and everything with him was about race, and Cory Booker/Kamala Harris are no different.  Moderates are going to be like, yeah, we don't want to go through that again when we're just beginning to recover race relations.

I think any black/gay/female Presidents need to come from the GOP because they rep everyone, not just their specific demographic.  They have no axe to grind.  And the American people are sick of axe grinding.


----------



## Monello

I'm gonna go with Robert Francis.  Or is it Bobby Frankie?  I think RFOR1 works best.  Just like another famous Texan who had a short career and fizzled out spectacularly in the DC spotlight.


----------



## 22AcaciaAve

I believe the dem nominee will be Joe Biden.  Mainly because any of the others are so far left it will be tough to win the independent vote and that is how elections are won.  You need your base, but Trump is polarizing both ways so I expect that will not be a problem on either the republican or democrat side.  But the fact is that neither base makes up even close to 50%.  Without the independent vote, you don't win.  The only way Harris, Warren, Booker, Beto or any other far left clowns win is if the independents simply stay home or vote 3rd party.  The independent faction in this country leans slightly conservative which is the only reason Trump won in 2016.  He got enough in the swing states to offset the the liberal states that overwhelmingly voted against him.  No matter what people think about Biden and his gaffe moments, he does have an impressive foreign policy knowledge base to draw from, and he if he swings back to the center in a general, he will be a tough opponent for Trump.  If the democrats don't nominate him they are simply asking for another improbable defeat.


----------



## 22AcaciaAve

NextJen said:


> Larry Hogan.



I really don't get why some republicans in Maryland are so down on Larry Hogan.  I get that he is not as far right as people would like, but this is Maryland.  If you want a governor that is that much of a conservative you need to move.  Seriously.  Have you looked at the state you live in?  If you really have that much of a problem with the only republican to win a gubernatorial re-election in over half a century, why would you continue to live here.  Maryland is one of the most liberal states in the country.  The only way a republican wins here is to be a moderate centrist.  If you are waiting for someone with views like Ted Nugent to take office, you will die very unhappy.  Larry Hogan at least kept the conversation in Maryland pointed towards the center.  After he is gone you will find out what democrat rule really means.  Say goodbye to your guns, say hello to taxes.  In 4 years you will wish Larry Hogan would run again.


----------



## Yooper

22AcaciaAve said:


> I believe the dem nominee will be Joe Biden.  Mainly because any of the others are so far left it will be tough to win the independent vote and that is how elections are won.  You need your base, but Trump is polarizing both ways so I expect that will not be a problem on either the republican or democrat side.  But the fact is that neither base makes up even close to 50%.  Without the independent vote, you don't win.  The only way Harris, Warren, Booker, Beto or any other far left clowns win is if the independents simply stay home or vote 3rd party.  The independent faction in this country leans slightly conservative which is the only reason Trump won in 2016.  He got enough in the swing states to offset the the liberal states that overwhelmingly voted against him.  No matter what people think about Biden and his gaffe moments, he does have an impressive foreign policy knowledge base to draw from, and he if he swings back to the center in a general, he will be a tough opponent for Trump.  If the democrats don't nominate him they are simply asking for another improbable defeat.


Not after the #MeToo accusation that came out today. It may not amount to much, but it will bring attention on how bad *Gropin' Joe *is in this regard. Character assassins are out in force and Biden - I think - is Target 1 (or at least in top few folks to sideline).

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## 22AcaciaAve

Yooper said:


> Not after the #MeToo accusation that came out today. It may not amount to much, but it will bring attention on how bad *Gropin' Joe *is in this regard. Character assassins are out in force and Biden - I think - is Target 1 (or at least in top few folks to sideline).
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



Maybe, you can never tell where these things are going to go.  But quite honestly if that kind of stuff was a killer than Trump wouldn't be running at all.  He's had as many gotcha moments as anyone and they don't seem to matter.  Maybe it will make Biden reconsider.  He's had plenty of stupid gaffes that will be replayed.  I wouldn't do it if I were him.  But he is probably the best of a sad radical field on the democrat side.  We will see.


----------



## NextJen

22AcaciaAve said:


> I really don't get why some republicans in Maryland are so down on Larry Hogan.  I get that he is not as far right as people would like, but this is Maryland.  If you want a governor that is that much of a conservative you need to move.  Seriously.  Have you looked at the state you live in?  If you really have that much of a problem with the only republican to win a gubernatorial re-election in over half a century, why would you continue to live here.  Maryland is one of the most liberal states in the country.  The only way a republican wins here is to be a moderate centrist.  If you are waiting for someone with views like Ted Nugent to take office, you will die very unhappy.  Larry Hogan at least kept the conversation in Maryland pointed towards the center.  After he is gone you will find out what democrat rule really means.  Say goodbye to your guns, say hello to taxes.  In 4 years you will wish Larry Hogan would run again.



Good gawd, people. It was a joke! A joke because so many Republicans are so down on Hogan. Get a grip. 

I understand that Hogan is a moderate. He understands that he has to appeal to more than the extreme right of the party. I get it. Sheesh. I actually like many things that Hogan has done. My only two beefs with him is that he has not been strong on supporting gun rights and right to conceal carry, etc. (which he didn't make any promises in his campaign), and that he has come out so strongly against the President.

SARCASM people. I promise I will use the sarcasm smiley, thingy next time.


----------



## Hijinx

IMO Joe Biden never had an original thought in his life.
He is a puppet, Someone else pulls his strings. That is why Obama had him for VP
Because he knew Old Joe would just go along with anything he did.

As President ---whoever is Speaker of the House will be the actual President.


----------



## vraiblonde

One would have to wonder why Joe Biden would even want to be President.  He has to be set for life with money.  You'd think he'd be ready to put all this crap behind him and retire comfortably.

So I have to think either A) he's a complete loser power monger psychopath; OR B) the puppetmasters are threatening him and forcing him to run because he'll be easy to control.

With Hillary it was easy - she was a definite and proudly out A.  With Uncle Joe, I'm guessing B.


----------



## 22AcaciaAve

NextJen said:


> Good gawd, people. It was a joke! A joke because so many Republicans are so down on Hogan. Get a grip.
> 
> I understand that Hogan is a moderate. He understands that he has to appeal to more than the extreme right of the party. I get it. Sheesh. I actually like many things that Hogan has done. My only two beefs with him is that he has not been strong on supporting gun rights and right to conceal carry, etc. (which he didn't make any promises in his campaign), and that he has come out so strongly against the President.
> 
> SARCASM people. I promise I will use the sarcasm smiley, thingy next time.



That's fair.  You might have meant it as sarcasm but you are correct about so many republicans being down on Hogan.  My question, directed at them, simply is why?  This is the best a republican can do in Maryland and if people don't like it they really should examine other places to live because there are 49 other states and at least 40 to 45 of them are not as far left as Maryland politically.


----------



## 22AcaciaAve

vraiblonde said:


> One would have to wonder why Joe Biden would even want to be President.  He has to be set for life with money.  You'd think he'd be ready to put all this crap behind him and retire comfortably.
> 
> So I have to think either A) he's a complete loser power monger psychopath; OR B) the puppetmasters are threatening him and forcing him to run because he'll be easy to control.
> 
> With Hillary it was easy - she was a definite and proudly out A.  With Uncle Joe, I'm guessing B.



Yeah but then why did Trump want to be President?  He's got more money than Biden and is nearly as old.  I don't think B applies to him, but A certainly might.


----------



## SamSpade

Chris0nllyn said:


> A room mate of his wrote this in 2009:
> 
> https://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/archive/jan_feb09/alumni_corner



That's actually interesting in that, while I had seen articles about how some people knew him at Columbia - 
I had never seen anything about his time at Occidental, and began to wonder about it.

But I still think it's odd that anyone transfers to an Ivy League college halfway through their college years.
Mainly - how often does it happen at all, and that two roommates were able to do it.


----------



## SamSpade

22AcaciaAve said:


> Yeah but then why did Trump want to be President?  He's got more money than Biden and is nearly as old.  I don't think B applies to him, but A certainly might.


I always thought it was because at some point, he thought he could make a difference.
I suppose when you HAVE enough money and never need to worry about it, you begin to have
different goals.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

I believe it will be Corey Booker.


----------



## Yooper

22AcaciaAve said:


> This is the best a republican can do in Maryland....


I would disagree. He doesn't even make the effort to push even a little bit. Even that tiny gesture would go a long way in getting those of us who aren't entirely happy feeling a little better.



22AcaciaAve said:


> I[]f people don't like it they really should examine other places to live because there are 49 other states and at least 40 to 45 of them are not as far left as Maryland politically.


Noted. And in the process of making that happen.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Yooper

22AcaciaAve said:


> Yeah but then why did Trump want to be President?  He's got more money than Biden and is nearly as old.  I don't think B applies to him, but A certainly might.


If the grammar here refers to Biden, I would agree. I think it is A. And his gropin' is a manifestation of it.

I honestly believe that Trump is, in essence, an American patriot.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Hijinx

22AcaciaAve said:


> That's fair.  You might have meant it as sarcasm but you are correct about so many republicans being down on Hogan.  My question, directed at them, simply is why?  This is the best a republican can do in Maryland and if people don't like it they really should examine other places to live because there are 49 other states and at least 40 to 45 of them are not as far left as Maryland politically.


I don't mind answering your question with my version of when Governor Hogan lost me.
When he removed the Maryland National Guard from the Border because he didn't like President Trump.
He spit in the face of the man I voted for. It's just that simple.


----------



## Yooper

Yooper said:


> Not after the #MeToo accusation that came out today. It may not amount to much, but it will bring attention on how bad *Gropin' Joe *is in this regard. Character assassins are out in force and Biden - I think - is Target 1 (or at least in top few folks to sideline).
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


From _The Daily Wire _yesterday:



> In November 2017, a month after the #MeToo movement was launched, The Daily Wire reported on Biden's disturbing behavior which included allegations that he made female Secret Service agents uncomfortable because he would get naked in front of them.
> 
> "Agents say that, whether at the vice president's residence or at his home in Delaware, Biden has a habit of swimming in his pool nude," the book "The First Family Detail" alleges. "Female Secret Service agents find that offensive."
> 
> The allegation against Biden comes as he is reportedly expected to announce that he is running for president in 2020.
> 
> "*Former Vice President Joe Biden is out front in a poll by Quinnipiac University out Thursday, with 29% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters saying they'll vote for him in the 2020 primary if he runs,*" CNN reported on Thursday.
> "Biden is contemplating a campaign for the White House in 2020, and there is speculation that he is close to entering the presidential field. He is followed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (19%), former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke (12%), and Sen. Kamala Harris (8%), according to the Quinnipiac poll."



(Click to expand, please, to see what I bolded from the article.)

Seems to me to be the beginning of a character assassination (though, well-deserved in Biden's case) to take-down anyone who may get in Harris' (and her backers') way.

Link: https://www.dailywire.com/news/45317/i-was-mortified-former-democrat-senator-accuses-ryan-saavedra

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## vraiblonde

22AcaciaAve said:


> Yeah but then why did Trump want to be President?  He's got more money than Biden and is nearly as old.  I don't think B applies to him, but A certainly might.



See, I think of Trump as someone who sees incompetence and it pisses him off so much that he wants to take it over and do it right.  And he's also no doubt an egomaniac.  But most politicians are so I don't hold that against him.


----------



## vraiblonde

Hijinx said:


> I don't mind answering your question with my version of when Governor Hogan lost me.
> When he removed the Maryland National Guard from the Border because he didn't like President Trump.
> He spit in the face of the man I voted for. It's just that simple.



#metoo

He hated Trump and was quite vocal about it.  I could get past that.  But when he actively ****ed us over because of that hatred, yeah, we're done now.

I also think Hogan is a dirty crony rewarder, and that opinion is personal for me on some level.  One of my friends is actually one of the cronies rewarded, but that doesn't lessen my disgust.  I don't like Hogan.  He's just another dirty politician.


----------



## vraiblonde

SamSpade said:


> That's actually interesting in that, while I had seen articles about how some people knew him at Columbia -
> I had never seen anything about his time at Occidental, and began to wonder about it.
> 
> But I still think it's odd that anyone transfers to an Ivy League college halfway through their college years.
> Mainly - how often does it happen at all, and that two roommates were able to do it.



I always wondered about Obama - and Bill Clinton, for that matter - how a kid from nothing goes to all these fancy schools and rubs elbows with the elite.  Not to be racist, but Obama was just another black kid raised by his grandparents.  And Clinton was just another kid with a slutty mom and abusive drunk step-father.  How did they get all the perks and bennies that put them on the road to the White House?

Clinton, we know, was groomed by the Little Rock good old boys that were banging his mother.  But really...Arkansas?  I don't think of them as big players.  At best they're big fish in a small pond.

Obama was even lowlier - he came from literally nowhere and it has never been adequately explained how he rose up in the ranks.  I have to guess it was an AOC type deal:  he auditioned and fit the suit, so powerful people propped him up and got him elected.  There's no other explanation how a dope smoking punk from a dysfunctional middle class home ended up going off to all these elite schools.


----------



## Merlin99

22AcaciaAve said:


> I believe the dem nominee will be Joe Biden.  Mainly because any of the others are so far left it will be tough to win the independent vote and that is how elections are won.  You need your base, but Trump is polarizing both ways so I expect that will not be a problem on either the republican or democrat side.  But the fact is that neither base makes up even close to 50%.  Without the independent vote, you don't win.  The only way Harris, Warren, Booker, Beto or any other far left clowns win is if the independents simply stay home or vote 3rd party.  The independent faction in this country leans slightly conservative which is the only reason Trump won in 2016.  He got enough in the swing states to offset the the liberal states that overwhelmingly voted against him.  No matter what people think about Biden and his gaffe moments, he does have an impressive foreign policy knowledge base to draw from, and he if he swings back to the center in a general, he will be a tough opponent for Trump.  If the democrats don't nominate him they are simply asking for another improbable defeat.


I'm doubting it's going to be Joe, his pandering is annoying to everyone who isn't being pandered to at the time.


----------



## Hijinx

vraiblonde said:


> I always wondered about Obama - and Bill Clinton, for that matter - how a kid from nothing goes to all these fancy schools and rubs elbows with the elite.  Not to be racist, but Obama was just another black kid raised by his grandparents.  And Clinton was just another kid with a slutty mom and abusive drunk step-father.  How did they get all the perks and bennies that put them on the road to the White House?
> 
> Clinton, we know, was groomed by the Little Rock good old boys that were banging his mother.  But really...Arkansas?  I don't think of them as big players.  At best they're big fish in a small pond.
> 
> Obama was even lowlier - he came from literally nowhere and it has never been adequately explained how he rose up in the ranks.  I have to guess it was an AOC type deal:  he auditioned and fit the suit, so powerful people propped him up and got him elected.  There's no other explanation how a dope smoking punk from a dysfunctional middle class home ended up going off to all these elite schools.


It's all over Google that Obama's Harvard education was paid for by a Saudi Prince who was in tight with Black Nationalist Malcolm X.
Now don't take my word look it up.
Now how they came to pick this guy I cannot answer, but his claim to not be a Muslim is a boatload of horse dung you couldn't carry away in Cargo ship.


----------



## Yooper

Yooper said:


> Seems to me to be the beginning of a character assassination (though, well-deserved in Biden's case) to take-down anyone who may get in Harris' (and her backers') way.
> --- End of line (MCP)



Here's a great short piece that Gropin' Joe is done:
Link: _"THE KNIVES ARE OUT FOR BIDEN"_

The closing paragraph (from a post well worth reading):

_It won’t help. Biden is an old white man–not the sort that the Democratic establishment wants as its nominee. Ann Althouse writes, “It’s been determined that it’s time, at long last, to destroy Joe Biden.” I agree. *But on whose behalf are the Democratic powers that be trying to sideline Biden*, along with such lesser lights as Beto O’Rourke and Amy Klobuchar? *My money is on Kamala Harris.* _


--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Bird Dog

A self-help guru and Oprah confidante is running for president with a mission to heal a divided country via a spiritual awakening
					

Marianne Williamson's campaign is unorthodox and filled with spiritual themes — but according to her, that is precisely what the US needs.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




A self-help guru and Oprah confidante is running for president with a mission to heal a divided country via a spiritual awakening.....

She’s a shoo-in for the nomination........


----------



## BOP

Yooper said:


> Here's a great short piece that Gropin' Joe is done:
> Link: _"THE KNIVES ARE OUT FOR BIDEN"_
> 
> The closing paragraph (from a post well worth reading):
> 
> _It won’t help. Biden is an old white man–not the sort that the Democratic establishment wants as its nominee. Ann Althouse writes, “It’s been determined that it’s time, at long last, to destroy Joe Biden.” I agree. *But on whose behalf are the Democratic powers that be trying to sideline Biden*, along with such lesser lights as Beto O’Rourke and Amy Klobuchar? *My money is on Kamala Harris.* _
> 
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


The modern Democrat party: white people need not apply. Give us your money, sit down at the back of the bus, and don't speak unless spoken to.


----------



## glhs837

Yeah, thought he was sort of insulated but I guess not.So I'll have to amend my ticket to Harris - Unknown. Hmmmm, maybe Bernie? I just cant see him playing second fiddle though.


----------



## awpitt

vraiblonde said:


> I always wondered about Obama - and Bill Clinton, for that matter - how a kid from nothing goes to all these fancy schools and rubs elbows with the elite.  Not to be racist, but Obama was just another black kid raised by his grandparents.  And Clinton was just another kid with a slutty mom and abusive drunk step-father.  How did they get all the perks and bennies that put them on the road to the White House?
> 
> Clinton, we know, was groomed by the Little Rock good old boys that were banging his mother.  But really...Arkansas?  I don't think of them as big players.  At best they're big fish in a small pond.
> 
> Obama was even lowlier - he came from literally nowhere and it has never been adequately explained how he rose up in the ranks.  I have to guess it was an AOC type deal:  he auditioned and fit the suit, so powerful people propped him up and got him elected.  There's no other explanation how a dope smoking punk from a dysfunctional middle class home ended up going off to all these elite schools.



Why is it so hard to believe that a kid could come from nothing and end up becoming president?  Why does it have to be some sort of conspiracy?


----------



## SamSpade

awpitt said:


> Why is it so hard to believe that a kid could come from nothing and end up becoming president?  Why does it have to be some sort of conspiracy?



It doesn't. We have any number of Presidents who originally came from humble beginnings - Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon. All of whom arrived in this world from either extreme poverty or - well certainly not a Kennedy or Roosevelt or Trump.

The DIFFERENCE being is that every one of these men distinguished themselves long before they arrived at the White House.

Only partially disagree regarding Bill Clinton. While he certainly had favorable patrons to help him along in his career, he accomplished
quite a number of noteworthy things as governor that would make us pay attention to him even if he had never even RUN for President.
By the time he ran for President, he'd been governor of Arkansas for a total of 12 non-consecutive years - state attorney general prior to 
that. A Rhodes Scholar.  He may have come from Arkansas, but it doesn't mean he dropped out of elementary school.

Obama - despite stories told about him - did not come from poverty. Tumult, maybe. But not poor.


----------



## Gilligan

SamSpade said:


> The DIFFERENCE being is that every one of these men distinguished themselves long before they arrived at the White House.



Huge difference....until AOC showed up to wrestle the mantle from him, Barry was the poster boy for an "empy suit". Never accomplished anything...never challenged...never excelled....zip.


----------



## SamSpade

Gilligan said:


> Huge difference....until AOC showed up to wrestle the mantle from him, Barry was the poster boy for an "empy suit". Never accomplished anything...never challenged...never excelled....zip.


HIS rise to political prominence is similarly thin. He wins the State Senator seat largely by screwing over his political patron, who originally was going to give it to him but decided late she wanted to continue - got his primary competitors largely kicked off by challenging their petitions - and sailed into the office by virtue of being a Democratic district. Spent most of his time in office voting 'present'. Wins the Senate seat after unsealing the sealed divorce records of his Republican competitor and ends up facing Keyes in a race he was certain to win.

Then begins to spend his entire Senate career running for President. Doesn't even finish his first term in national office before he reaches the White House.

It does sort of sound like he was someone's client, doesn't it?


----------



## vraiblonde

awpitt said:


> Why is it so hard to believe that a kid could come from nothing and end up becoming president?  Why does it have to be some sort of conspiracy?



Not so much that they would become President, but that they would get in the _position_ to become President.  Both of Obama's parents (and his stepdad) were highly educated, so it stands to reason that he would be as well, but I'm interested in the specifics.  I'm also interested in how he went from State Senator to US Senator for a couple of years to President.  That just seems like a fast track to me, especially considering he didn't really distinguish himself in his Senate career.

By "coming from nothing" I don't necessarily mean poverty - Obama's family wasn't poor, that I'm aware of.  What I mean is that he doesn't come from a connected family like, say, Bush did, or a family with a history in politics.  As Sam said, at least Bill Clinton was Governor and on the radar; Obama seemed to have come from nowhere. 

Not a conspiracy, I'd just like to know more specifically the steps he took and who his patrons were.  If you follow my travels you know I have an intereste in presidential boyhood homes and how they got from point A to point B.  Obama has a lot of gaps.


----------



## This_person

awpitt said:


> Why is it so hard to believe that a kid could come from nothing and end up becoming president?  Why does it have to be some sort of conspiracy?


To be fair, it flies in the face of everything the Democrat party stands for.  I mean, they tell us repeatedly that the only way to get ahead is to be a "connected" person, with parents of wealth and/or fame, whose privilege gets transferred to the kid.  There is NO OTHER WAY, and that is the Democrat explanation for why some people live in poverty for generation after generation even though they work just as hard and are just as smart as other people.  It's the singular fault of them not already being wealthy; the only way to success is to have successful parentage.  No one can be held responsible for themselves, because it's all about who your parents are and the privilege that offers you, and how you're being held down for not having that money from your parents.

If some half-breed kid from HI raised by an abandoned mother's parents, with no real money or clout, can rise to be president, it would imply that everything the Democrats stand for is entirely inaccurate, and everything the conservatives tell you is true about America is actually true about America.


----------



## Salmon

#feeltheburn2020


----------



## Salmon

Hijinx said:


> The question has never been answered was he a foreign aid student call Barry Soetoro at Columbia University, and why does no one who went there know him?


Debunked https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/columbia-records/


----------



## Bird Dog

Salmon said:


> #feeltheburn2020


He's an old white guy......never going to happen. Your hysterical brethren will see to that...........like they did in 2016


----------



## Salmon

Bird Dog said:


> He's an old white guy......never going to happen. Your hysterical brethren will see to that...........like they did in 2016


Ideology matters.


----------



## GURPS

Salmon said:


> #feeltheburn2020







YOU Want the Old White Guy  ....  How Progressive of you 

What about KT Harris ? you racist


----------



## This_person

Salmon said:


> Debunked https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/columbia-records/


Just so you know, nothing in there debunked the "foreign aid student", "Soetoro", or even that he graduated from Columbia (it specifically states that he could have gone elsewhere).

Your debunked is debunked.


----------



## This_person

Salmon said:


> Ideology matters.


It absolutely does. That's why Bernie will never be president.


----------



## Bird Dog

Salmon said:


> Ideology matters.


Not to racist socialists.......


----------



## Gilligan

This_person said:


> Just so you know, nothing in there debunked the "foreign aid student", "Soetoro", or even that he graduated from Columbia (it specifically states that he could have gone elsewhere).
> 
> Your debunked is debunked.


Poor Sally is far too slow to understand that.


----------



## gary_webb

Come on Kamala Baby, Let go for a ride!


----------



## Yooper

gary_webb said:


> Come on Kamala Baby, Let go for a ride!
> View attachment 136075


Better if a picture of Ted Kennedy instead?

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Hijinx

Yooper said:


> Better if a picture of Ted Kennedy instead?
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


That's a Pontiac and Ted had a raggedy old Oldsmobile.
Teddy was Jussie Smollett long before there was a Jussie.
Guilty as sin and free as a bird.


----------



## Grumpy

I'm still all in on Harris, but after reading up on all the candidates, watch out for Buttigieg, IMO. A Harris/Buttigieg(or vice versa) ticket could be bad news.


----------



## Yooper

Grumpy said:


> I'm still all in on Harris, but after reading up on all the candidates, watch out for Buttigieg, IMO. A Harris/Buttigieg(or vice versa) ticket could be bad news.


Theoretically, I can see that. But to play out? Not seeing it. A mayor?

Or are you saying his white gayness and progressivism ("intergenerational justice,"huh?) balances the less (is she?) progressive/straight/black-ish Harris?

I agree with you on Harris. But I think the ticket partner will be "Beto."

_(Voice with an Irish accent speaks from above: "Ahem. Excuse me, Yooper. That would be Robert Francis O'Rourke.")_

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Grumpy

Yooper said:


> Theoretically, I can see that. But to play out? Not seeing it. A mayor?
> 
> Or are you saying his white gayness and progressivism ("intergenerational justice,"huh?) balances the less (is she?) progressive/straight/black-ish Harris?
> 
> I agree with you on Harris. But I think the ticket partner will be "Beto."
> 
> _(Voice with an Irish accent speaks from above: "Ahem. Excuse me, Yooper. That would be Robert Francis O'Rourke.")_
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



No matter what, it will be interesting with this many players already. I think Beto will have a Howard Dean moment with his 'too cool for school' edginess and eliminate himself..just my opinion.


----------



## jrt_ms1995

Salmon said:


> #feeltheburn2020


That's just your hemorrhoids.


----------



## Bird Dog

Lori Lightfoot......newly elected Mayor of Chicago.
Black, Female, openly Gay with an American Indian surname
What more could the progs want? 
I know she just got elected mayor, but stranger things have happened.....









						Lori Lightfoot elected Chicago mayor, first black woman and first openly gay person to hold post
					

Lori Lightfoot and Toni Preckwinkle had the first two spots in February's election that saw a historic 14 candidates for mayor, leading to the runoff.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## awpitt

Yooper said:


> Theoretically, I can see that. But to play out? Not seeing it. A mayor?
> 
> Or are you saying his white gayness and progressivism ("intergenerational justice,"huh?) balances the less (is she?) progressive/straight/black-ish Harris?
> 
> I agree with you on Harris. But I think the ticket partner will be "Beto."
> 
> _(Voice with an Irish accent speaks from above: "Ahem. Excuse me, Yooper. That would be Robert Francis O'Rourke.")_
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



This is what happens when the voters start to scrape the bottom of the barrel.  Look at 2016....  The best choice we could come up with was crooked Donald or crooked Hillary.  I couldn't vote for either of them. I throw my vote out and voted third party just so I could walk out of the voting booth with a clean conscience.


----------



## Hijinx

I voted for Trump, and my conscience was perfectly clear.
It still is.
I definitely made the right decision.


----------



## Salmon

I would love to see a Sanders-Warren ticket.


----------



## Gilligan

Salmon said:


> I would love to see a Sanders-Warren ticket.



So would I !


----------



## Salmon

Gilligan said:


> So would I !


Do you think your President will willingly vacate the White House once his term is up?


----------



## Grumpy

Salmon said:


> Do you think your President will willingly vacate the White House once his term is up?


In 2024, certainly!


----------



## Gilligan

Salmon said:


> Do you think your President will willingly vacate the White House once his term is up?


Are you really as stupid as the posts you make??


----------



## GURPS

Salmon said:


> Do you think your President will willingly vacate the White House once his term is up?





 

Trump is an American President ... are YOU not an American ?


----------



## Salmon

GURPS said:


> Trump is an American President ... are YOU not an American ?


Yes, but I refuse to accept his legitimacy for several reasons. The guy didn’t even get the most votes.


----------



## stgislander

Salmon said:


> Do you think your President will willingly vacate the White House once his term is up?


I don't see why not.


----------



## GURPS

Salmon said:


> Yes, but I refuse to accept his legitimacy for several reasons.



Yet YOUR Kind demanded we accept the half white guy from chicago



Salmon said:


> The guy didn’t even get the most votes.



Irrelevant    .....  you should move Europe where you can enjoy winner takes all


----------



## Ken King

Salmon said:


> The guy didn’t even get the most votes.


Of the ones that count, he most certainly did.


----------



## stgislander

Salmon said:


> Yes, but I refuse to accept his legitimacy for several reasons. The guy didn’t even get the most votes.


You really do not understand how our Republic is designed to work do you?


----------



## GURPS

stgislander said:


> You really do not understand how our Republic is designed to work do you?





Progressives DO NOT CARE 

they want MOAR POWER to Force THEIR Vision of Amerika on the rest of us


----------



## ReadingTheNews

Salmon said:


> Yes, but I refuse to accept his legitimacy for several reasons. The guy didn’t even get the most votes.



Troll


----------



## Gilligan

ReadingTheNews said:


> Troll


He's too stone stupid to be a troll.


----------



## This_person

Salmon said:


> I would love to see a Sanders-Warren ticket.


I would absolutely love that!!


----------



## This_person

Salmon said:


> Yes, but I refuse to accept his legitimacy for several reasons. The guy didn’t even get the most votes.


He got an overwhelming majority of the electoral college votes.  Way more than just “most”.  What are you talking about?


----------



## This_person

Salmon said:


> Yes, but I refuse to accept his legitimacy for several reasons. The guy didn’t even get the most votes.


Why can’t you accept the outcome of the election?

Your type was worried Trump wouldn’t, but YOU won’t.  Pretty ironic, don’t you think?


----------



## Hijinx

Bernie and Elizabeth Warren campaign poster.


----------



## Bird Dog

Salmon said:


> Yes, but I refuse to accept his legitimacy for several reasons. The guy didn’t even get the most votes.



We should never let LA and NYC pick our President......that’s how civil wars start and why our founding fathers didnt want Va and Mass to be the only states to elect a President.....read your history genius....


----------



## BOP

Salmon said:


> Debunked https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/columbia-records/


You never fail to disappoint, Jimmy.


----------



## GURPS

https://amgreatness.com/2019/04/03/democrats-in-2020-unelectable-nonentities/


----------



## Salmon

Bird Dog said:


> We should never let LA and NYC pick our President......that’s how civil wars start and why our founding fathers didnt want Va and Mass to be the only states to elect a President.....read your history genius....


Should they only get 3/5 of a vote?


----------



## Yooper

Salmon said:


> Should they only get 3/5 of a vote?


Oh, stop. This is a tired, tired argument.

For the thousandth time, "We The People" vote as state blocs (why this nation is called "The United *States* of America").

Y*our vote counts 5/5 at the state level. (Your vote is NOT a NATIONAL vote.)*

Then each of the states "vote" with the "populationally"-adjusted elector votes allocated to them as a result of the most recent census.

The system is designed to prevent states like CA and NY from dominating every election by virtue of their high population densities. It wasn't always CA & NY. Earlier, it was states like VA and MA that dominated. But the principle remains the same. This is a FINELY tuned system that is designed to protect EVERYONE's interests and assumes/understands/expects friction and dis-satisfaction. The system is designed to seek consensus and cooperation rather than the bullying mob direct democracy would result in.

Please, do yourself a favor and read up on this. Read the Constitution Convention arguments, etc. You'll find out that your concern is an ancient retread and was satisfactorily answered at the Convention. You'll also learn that the next card you're going to want to play - that the Electoral College encouraged racism and slavery (I know this b/c of your pseudo-clever use of "3/5") - is equally as tired and terribly ridiculous.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Salmon

Yooper said:


> Oh, stop. This is a tired, tired argument.
> 
> For the thousandth time, "We The People" vote as state blocs (why this nation is called "The United *States* of America").
> 
> Y*our vote counts 5/5 at the state level. (Your vote is NOT a NATIONAL vote.)*
> 
> Then each of the states "vote" with the "populationally"-adjusted elector votes allocated to them as a result of the most recent census.
> 
> The system is designed to prevent states like CA and NY from dominating every election by virtue of their high population densities. It wasn't always CA & NY. Earlier, it was states like VA and MA that dominated. But the principle remains the same. This is a FINELY tuned system that is designed to protect EVERYONE's interests and assumes/understands/expects friction and dis-satisfaction. The system is designed to seek consensus and cooperation rather than the bullying mob direct democracy would result in.
> 
> Please, do yourself a favor and read up on this. Read the Constitution Convention arguments, etc. You'll find out that your concern is an ancient retread and was satisfactorily answered at the Convention. You'll also learn that the next card you're going to want to play - that the Electoral College encouraged racism and slavery (I know this b/c of your pseudo-clever use of "3/5") - is equally as tired and terribly ridiculous.
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


Luckily many states are no longer going to participate in the Electoral College.


----------



## GURPS

Yooper said:


> Oh, stop. This is a tired, tired argument.




if YOU disagree with intersectional group think you are

Racist
Misogynistic
Have Brown People Seeking a better life
Natvitist
Homophobe
Transgerner
Muslims




Yooper said:


> Please, do yourself a favor and read up on this.
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)




you do realize you are communcating with either a troll [and a poor one at that] of a blinded ideologue


----------



## glhs837

Salmon said:


> Should they only get 3/5 of a vote?




Should they be allowed to practice the tyranny of the majority? I hope not. The Founders were wiser than most folks give them credit for today, and spent more time learning and understanding the inherent weakness of a straight democracy. Mob rule is an ugly thing, dont rush to embrace it. 

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/preventing-the-tyranny-the-majority


----------



## Yooper

Salmon said:


> Luckily many states are no longer going to participate in the Electoral College.


No, they are still going to participate in the Electoral College.

What they ARE going to do is make render every state resident's vote irrelevant by siding with the CA's and the NY's and making a sham of the Electoral College.

You do realize that in your envisioned scenario we don't go from 3/5 of a vote to 5/5, we go to 0/5. Unless you live in CA, NY, etc. Then you get 10/5 or more. 

That's progress?

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Salmon

Yooper said:


> No, they are still going to participate in the Electoral College.
> 
> What they ARE going to do is make render every state resident's vote irrelevant by siding with the CA's and the NY's and making a sham of the Electoral College.
> 
> You do realize that in your envisioned scenario we don't go from 3/5 of a vote to 5/5, we go to 0/5. Unless you live in CA, NY, etc. Then you get 10/5 or more.
> 
> That's progress?
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


One person, one vote. Can’t get more equitable than that.


----------



## Merlin99

Salmon said:


> One person, one vote. Can’t get more equitable than that.


You are some civics teachers somewhere biggest disappointment.


----------



## Yooper

Salmon said:


> One person, one vote. Can’t get more equitable than that.


Not going to debate this further. Because it's clear you don't understand that our country was set up/is set up as a representative, federal Republic of united States. Not a single mass of people. Not a national mob. And for good reason.

We are not Europe or Russia or whatever. We were established to be something quite different from them, a _novus ordo seclorum_. That _e pluribus unum_ is who we are; that out of many STATES, one NATION.

There is a well thought-out reason why things are the way they are. It's about checks and balances, re: power.

So here's where we disagree: you want/crave power all to/for yourself. And I don't want to give you that absolutism. Why we fought the Revolution, btw.

P.S. I say, "our country," because I assumed (perhaps, incorrectly?) that it was yours too?

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Bird Dog

Yooper said:


> Oh, stop. This is a tired, tired argument.
> 
> For the thousandth time, "We The People" vote as state blocs (why this nation is called "The United *States* of America").
> 
> Y*our vote counts 5/5 at the state level. (Your vote is NOT a NATIONAL vote.)*
> 
> Then each of the states "vote" with the "populationally"-adjusted elector votes allocated to them as a result of the most recent census.
> 
> The system is designed to prevent states like CA and NY from dominating every election by virtue of their high population densities. It wasn't always CA & NY. Earlier, it was states like VA and MA that dominated. But the principle remains the same. This is a FINELY tuned system that is designed to protect EVERYONE's interests and assumes/understands/expects friction and dis-satisfaction. The system is designed to seek consensus and cooperation rather than the bullying mob direct democracy would result in.
> 
> Please, do yourself a favor and read up on this. Read the Constitution Convention arguments, etc. You'll find out that your concern is an ancient retread and was satisfactorily answered at the Convention. You'll also learn that the next card you're going to want to play - that the Electoral College encouraged racism and slavery (I know this b/c of your pseudo-clever use of "3/5") - is equally as tired and terribly ridiculous.
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


You're talking way over his pay grade......just sayin'


----------



## h3mech

really don't care they are all socialist


----------



## SamSpade

Yooper said:


> We are not Europe or Russia or whatever.



Thought this was relevant, however imprecise.

After I adopted my son from Russia, we took an Alaskan cruise and of course, there's lots of international staff aboard.
I met a woman from Russia and told her all about my son, and then I told her what a lovely city Moscow is.
She smirked and said that it was beautiful because the government takes all the money from the REST of Russia to make it so.

This is why we're a republic - the tyranny of the majority. Without representative government, the big can just take from the small.


----------



## This_person

Salmon said:


> One person, one vote. Can’t get more equitable than that.


If we were not a republic of states, you would be right.

We are a republic of states, therefore you are not right.


----------



## Yooper

SamSpade said:


> Thought this was relevant, however imprecise.
> 
> After I adopted my son from Russia, we took an Alaskan cruise and of course, there's lots of international staff aboard.
> I met a woman from Russia and told her all about my son, and then I told her what a lovely city Moscow is.
> She smirked and said that it was beautiful because the government takes all the money from the REST of Russia to make it so.
> 
> This is why we're a republic - the tyranny of the majority. Without representative government, the big can just take from the small.


Because in Russia (or any other center-centric entity) the center must hold (to riff on the old poem).

As I mentioned above, rebelling against the center is why we fought the Revolution.

Great post. Thank you.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## USWWarrior

Lurk said:


> You don't think the Democratic Socialists will splinter off and make Bern their "He was screwed in 2016, don't screw him again!" candidate?


No I do not.


----------



## Bann

I think the powers-that-be are trying to get Bernie out now.  Someone was harping yesterday about him not releasing HIS taxes, yet.


----------



## glhs837

Yeah, aint nobody coming out of this preliminary round without bruises.


----------



## NextJen

I'm thinking they will trot out Michele Obama closer to the election. The left will, of course, love her. And, she will actually draw votes from those who are afraid that their party has gone too far left. Also, how great will it be for them to have Barack back in the Whitehouse? Plus, she's a woman....what better than that her husband was the first African American President and she will be the first female President? 

Ah yes, don't we all long for those days of a scandal free presidency and administration? 
   (in case you missed it)


----------



## NextJen

NextJen said:


> Michele Obama



On top of that - Oprah as her VP.


----------



## Kyle

NextJen said:


> On top of that - Oprah as her VP.


Joy Behar for SecDef...  Rosie O'Donnell to head the Food and Drug Admin...


----------



## Yooper

Stayin' alive, stayin' alive. Oh, Oh, Oh, oh, keepin' the thread alive. Unlike Bernie, perhaps?






--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Toxick

I just heard the name Buttigieg pronounced out loud for the first time today.


Wasn't expecting that.


----------



## Yooper

Why, Robert Francis! This is sorta funny!






--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Kyle

If only....


----------



## Merlin99

Yooper said:


> Stayin' alive, stayin' alive. Oh, Oh, Oh, oh, keepin' the thread alive. Unlike Bernie, perhaps?
> 
> View attachment 136300
> 
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


Looks like somebody borrowed Dirty Harrys rubber band.


----------



## Yooper

No. It never gets old.... Nope. Not one bit.

A "two for one" blue light special.






--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Yooper

And one more.... In support of Robert Francis.






--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## WingsOfGold

Salmon said:


> One person, one vote. Can’t get more equitable than that.


Should dopers be permitted to vote Jed? I mean it's obvious you haven't a clue.


----------



## Yooper

Keepin' the thread alive (h/t The Beach Boys).





--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## stgislander

I'm guessing the funk of all those people in the clown car is getting pretty strong by now.









						Seth Moulton Joins 2020 Race for President (Published 2019)
					

Mr. Moulton, a Massachusetts congressman, has pushed for a “new generation of leadership” in Washington and sought to deny Nancy Pelosi the House speaker’s gavel.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Yooper

stgislander said:


> I'm guessing the funk of all those people in the clown car is getting pretty strong by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seth Moulton Joins 2020 Race for President (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> Mr. Moulton, a Massachusetts congressman, has pushed for a “new generation of leadership” in Washington and sought to deny Nancy Pelosi the House speaker’s gavel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


I think much of this "candidacy announcing" is more about gaining name recognition for 2024 (and beyond) and less about seriously contesting 2020.

I'm now inclined to believe this slew of jumps-in (seemingly, increasing with each day) reflects the DNC's acknowledgment that 2020 is a lost cause. Of course, the noise will remain ("Defeat Trump! Our candidate is the best!" and all that blather), but the reading of the spaces between the talking point lines says, "concession."

So yes, name recognition for down the road.

We'll see.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## SamSpade

Yooper said:


> So yes, name recognition for down the road.
> 
> We'll see.
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



Doesn't seem to work most of the time for these huge turnouts, though, does it?
My guess is, you probably won't ever hear from Martin O'Malley again.


----------



## Hijinx

SamSpade said:


> Doesn't seem to work most of the time for these huge turnouts, though, does it?
> My guess is, you probably won't ever hear from Martin O'Malley again.


I sure hope not.

But I have changed my mind on who will win the Dem primary.
I said Willie Brown's ex-mistress would get it, but I undertstand Old Joe Biden has finally read a couple of polls that said he could win and has decided to give it a shot.  If Joe runs he will win the primary.

The Democrats have dealt with Biden before and they know they can pull his strings.


----------



## SamSpade

Hijinx said:


> I sure hope not.
> 
> But I have changed my mind on who will win the Dem primary.
> I said Willie Brown's ex-mistress would get it, but I undertstand Old Joe Biden has finally read a couple of polls that said he could win and has decided to give it a shot.  If Joe runs he will win the primary.
> 
> The Democrats have dealt with Biden before and they know they can pull his strings.



I'm seeing a pattern here not unlike primaries in the past - such as Beto's quick rise and beginning to fall to Buttigieg - who will likely also rise briefly and fall to someone else. The pattern is that flavor of the month becomes the hot news item - until they're tainted with bad press. In the past, this led to the most boring candidate grabbing the nomination. I give you Dukakis and Kerry.

 Right now, Harris has the biggest lead, and polling so far shows, she'd still beat Joe. So maybe if the party wants her, they will find more ways to scuttle Joe's campaign.


----------



## Yooper

SamSpade said:


> My guess is, you probably won't ever hear from Martin O'Malley again.


Who?  



Hijinx said:


> But I have changed my mind on who will win the Dem primary.
> I said Willie Brown's ex-mistress would get it, but I undertstand Old Joe Biden has finally read a couple of polls that said he could win and has decided to give it a shot.  If Joe runs he will win the primary.
> 
> The Democrats have dealt with Biden before and they know they can pull his strings.


I, too, thought Harris was the shoo-in.

But you may be on to something; run Biden and it's a no-lose scenario.

Hmmm. Bears watching.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## vraiblonde

It would be pretty hilarious if all these young SJWs had to come out for an old white guy.  

I love Joe, but he's not terribly bright.  There's no way he could debate Donald Trump and survive.  Sarah Palin ran right over him, can you imagine what Trump would do?  

I can't picture a scenario in which Trump would lose 2020.  This current crop of jokers has to be really stupid to want to take him on - he will eat them alive on the debate stage, plus he has an excellent record to run on.  If they gin up impeachment crap, they'll really sink themselves.


----------



## glhs837




----------



## awpitt

vraiblonde said:


> It would be pretty hilarious if all these young SJWs had to come out for an old white guy.
> 
> I love Joe, but he's not terribly bright.  There's no way he could debate Donald Trump and survive.  Sarah Palin ran right over him, can you imagine what Trump would do?
> 
> I can't picture a scenario in which Trump would lose 2020.  This current crop of jokers has to be really stupid to want to take him on - he will eat them alive on the debate stage, plus he has an excellent record to run on.  If they gin up impeachment crap, they'll really sink themselves.



I think you're under estimating Uncle Joe.  His biggest battle will be getting the nomination.  If he can get past the people at the kid's table, Trump will have a real challenge. If any of the others get the nomination, Trump will be shoe-in for a second term.


----------



## This_person

awpitt said:


> If he can get past the people at the kid's table, Trump will have a real challenge.



On what do you base this?

Personally, I see two guys who have some of the same baggage (accusations of inappropriate actions towards women, accusations of being horrifically gaffe-prone, old, white, male), but Trump is the sitting president with some actual accomplishments to his name, and Biden was the VP for 8 years under some of the slowest economic recovery of American history, some of the highest racial tensions, some of the worst scandals of any presidency, and Biden accomplished exactly zero as VP.  Meanwhile, as a sitting legislative branch person, Biden's accomplishments would easily fit on a yellow sticky.

So, I'm curious as to what you think makes him a real challenge.


----------



## Hijinx

The basic thing that would make Joe Biden a challenge is the "Yellow Dog" vote.
This country is pretty much split down the Middle and m,any people do not vote for who is the best candidate, they vote party.
Biden has name recognition, he was Obama's tool and if elected he will still be Obama's tool.
Obama won an election and Hillary came close, take all of those votes and add in a few from the cemetery's and the  illegals and Biden could slip in.


----------



## Yooper

awpitt said:


> I think you're under estimating Uncle Joe.  His biggest battle will be getting the nomination.  If he can get past the people at the kid's table, Trump will have a real challenge. If any of the others get the nomination, Trump will be shoe-in for a second term.





This_person said:


> On what do you base this?
> 
> Personally, I see two guys who have some of the same baggage (accusations of inappropriate actions towards women, accusations of being horrifically gaffe-prone, old, white, male), but Trump is the sitting president with some actual accomplishments to his name, and Biden was the VP for 8 years under some of the slowest economic recovery of American history, some of the highest racial tensions, some of the worst scandals of any presidency, and Biden accomplished exactly zero as VP.  Meanwhile, as a sitting legislative branch person, Biden's accomplishments would easily fit on a yellow sticky.
> 
> So, I'm curious as to what you think makes him a real challenge.


Both great posts. Thank you, both!

I think awpitt is on to something here. If Biden can get by the "people at the kid's table" (which is a BIG assume), then the Dems have the anti-Trump (wrt emotional states). Don't discount the emotion here; studies (and common sense/just plain observation) show that folks go on emotion to a far greater extent than they believe they do and that facts often take second place to facts.

In fact, one can make the case that this is why Repubs so often fail in direct competition with Dems. Repubs almost ALWAYS have facts on their side; Dems have "puppies, children, and Pajama Boy." When this is how the fight lines up, Dems usually win. Trump upended the usual Repub playbook coopting Dem approaches. (Which infuriated both Repubs - "That's NOT who WE are" - and Dems - "Hey, he stole our playbook!")

In other words, Dems, knowing they can't use their usual playbook against Trump, will actually try to go the Repub route. Biden is the Dems anti-Trump in a mirror/alternate universe-style election.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## stgislander

I wonder if Joe is dusting off his stump speech from 1987.


----------



## vraiblonde

awpitt said:


> I think you're under estimating Uncle Joe.  His biggest battle will be getting the nomination.  If he can get past the people at the kid's table, Trump will have a real challenge. If any of the others get the nomination, Trump will be shoe-in for a second term.



It's hard for me to tell because the thinking of the average modern Democrat is so far outside my comprehension level that I'm not a good judge of what they can be talked into.  The whole Kavanaugh thing made it clear to me that they think WAY differently than I do.

The problem with the Democrat Party is that they're trying to be too many things to too many different groups.  The very young, the blacks, the Latinos, the gays, the extremely poor, the extremely rich, the uneducated, the overeducated.....it's a lot to juggle, especially since those groups not only don't want the same things, they are in direct conflict with each other.  

Dems are going to have to rely on the power of the D and voter turnout, because there is not a candidate currently in the running who has enough appeal to all those groups that they could beat Trump.


----------



## GURPS

vraiblonde said:


> The very young, the blacks, the Latinos, the gays, the extremely poor, the extremely rich, the uneducated, the overeducated.....



Bernie Bro and his group of 'Socialist Democrats' on one side Biden on the other side the other 20 clowns spread across the spectrum in between along with their inter-sectional supporters


----------



## Yooper

_This (below) is all predicated on the assumption Biden will get the nod/nom. (That is going to be an epic food fight as the DNC pays lip service to the radical left elements, but knows it needs to field a candidate who appeals to the independents, etc.)._

But if so, Joe's job will be to soothe the American public whom the DNC believes is triggered, anxious, upset, etc. with Trump. Boring, staid, gaffe-prone, Joe's "appeal" will be to connect as your lovable, predictable uncle that is always there for you to comfort you. His gropin' may actually play to this in a positive way. So expect the DNC (should Joe get the nod) to go all zen about Joe and start screeching/Chicken Little-ing to even a higher level, re: Trump (even going ga-ga, bat-chit loony, crazy screeching when Trump says benign things like the word, "a" or "see" or misspells a word like "believe").

Joe will be all calm, cool, "hey, bro" and the VP nod (a woman of color) will be the attack dog (spewing all the intersectionality and oppression nonsense).

Thus, the anti-Trump (the anti-Trump/Pence ticket).

Again, IF he gets the nomination (and the DNC, I bet, is already plotting to ensure it happens. Let's see as we tune into the next episode of Sandersgate 2.0-20 (get it, a bad pun on Sanders 2020?)).

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Gilligan

Yooper said:


> Let's see as we tune into episode of Sandersgate 2.0-20 (get it, a bad pun on Sanders 2020?)).
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



Eh....Bernie will be satisfied with another nice vacation home.


----------



## Merlin99

And the next question will be is Pence going to be in the picture for 2020 or will Trump go a different route.


----------



## TCROW

Sarah Palin for VP in 2020!

Punt Pence! Hail in Palin!


----------



## 22AcaciaAve

awpitt said:


> I think you're under estimating Uncle Joe.  His biggest battle will be getting the nomination.  If he can get past the people at the kid's table, Trump will have a real challenge. If any of the others get the nomination, Trump will be shoe-in for a second term.



I agree with this.  I have said people dismissing Biden are doing so at their own peril.  Elections in today's polarized country are won in a hand full of swing states.  80% of the states are just about out of play.  More than that, the elections are won by winning the hand full of independent/moderate/crossover voters.  Biden represents a choice moderates might go for.   He is very popular in Pennsylvania and would probably flip that state.  The other far left nut jobs would not find getting support from moderates and independents so easy.  I think Trump himself knows this.  It's why he has been consulting with his campaign advisers and and asking what they know about Biden's plans for some time now.


----------



## Yooper

Yooper said:


> *Joe will be all calm, cool, "hey, bro" and the VP nod (a woman of color) will be the attack dog (spewing all the intersectionality and oppression nonsense).*
> 
> Thus, the anti-Trump (the anti-Trump/Pence ticket).


Let's if if I'm proved correct....



> Some black lawmakers are agonizing over whether to back Biden or two members of the close-knit caucus — Sens. Harris and Cory Booker — who also are vying for the White House, according to interviews with a dozen CBC members.
> 
> But with the former vice president jumping out to a huge, if early, lead in the polls, several CBC members are warming to the idea of a Biden-Harris ticket to take on President Donald Trump.
> 
> “That would be a dream ticket for me, a dream ticket!” said Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.). “If she is not the nominee, that would be a dream ticket for this country.”
> 
> Harris is everything the 76-year-old Biden is not. The freshman senator from California is younger, a woman and a person of color. As Biden gets dinged for his bipartisan bromides, Harris is winning applause from progressives for her merciless cross-examination of Trump officials.



Link: _‘A dream ticket’: Black lawmakers pitch Biden-Harris to beat Trump_

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## GURPS

*Gillibrand Floundering Blames Sexism for low polling numbers


So a Democrat Running for President on the Democratic Ticket Blames Sexist Democrats for her low poll numbers *


How Myopically Obtuse  ... Damn its like Sapidius is running for Office

Do Democrats run these talking points by anyone before speaking publicly



https://www.dailywire.com/news/47182/kirsten-gillibrand-blames-sexism-low-poll-numbers-emily-zanotti 

"They just have to get to know her," Gillibrand said, oddly referring to herself in the third person. "They might make a judgment without knowing her, but once they meet her and know who she is and why she's running, it will give her that opportunity."

In the wake of her 2016 loss, Hillary Clinton tried to make the same argument: that America simply wasn't ready for a President who wasn't old, rich, white, and male (even though she was competing to succeed a young, middle-class, black man who had just served eight years in the Oval Office). Like Gillibrand, she tried to blame her loss on misogyny, on double standards applied to female candidates, and on the concept of "likeability," which she claimed was only applied to female candidates.

But in Gillibrand's case, the excuse makes even less sense than in Clinton's. For starters, she's one of several women competing in a heavily diverse field of candidates, and almost all those women are polling better than her. Both Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) are consistently within the top five candidates -- even if both are polling far behind two white males, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and former Vice President Joe Biden -- and both will likely make the debate stage.


----------



## GURPS

*Montana Gov. Steve Bullock Becomes 23rd Democrat to Enter 2020 Race*


----------



## stgislander

GURPS said:


> *Gillibrand Floundering Blames Sexism for low polling numbers
> 
> 
> So a Democrat Running for President on the Democratic Ticket Blames Sexist Democrats for her low poll numbers *
> 
> 
> How Myopically Obtuse  ... Damn its like Sapidius is running for Office
> 
> Do Democrats run these talking points by anyone before speaking publicly
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/47182/kirsten-gillibrand-blames-sexism-low-poll-numbers-emily-zanotti
> 
> "They just have to get to know her," Gillibrand said, oddly referring to herself in the third person. "They might make a judgment without knowing her, but once they meet her and know who she is and why she's running, it will give her that opportunity."
> 
> In the wake of her 2016 loss, Hillary Clinton tried to make the same argument: that America simply wasn't ready for a President who wasn't old, rich, white, and male (even though she was competing to succeed a young, middle-class, black man who had just served eight years in the Oval Office). Like Gillibrand, she tried to blame her loss on misogyny, on double standards applied to female candidates, and on the concept of "likeability," which she claimed was only applied to female candidates.
> 
> But in Gillibrand's case, the excuse makes even less sense than in Clinton's. For starters, she's one of several women competing in a heavily diverse field of candidates, and almost all those women are polling better than her. Both Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) are consistently within the top five candidates -- even if both are polling far behind two white males, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and former Vice President Joe Biden -- and both will likely make the debate stage.


Playing beer pong with water killed it for me.


----------



## vraiblonde

Merlin99 said:


> And the next question will be is Pence going to be in the picture for 2020 or will Trump go a different route.



Trump would be a fool to dump Pence.  It's more likely that Pence can't stand the heat and will resign.


----------



## vraiblonde

GURPS said:


> *Gillibrand Floundering Blames Sexism for low polling numbers*



Well, what's she gonna say?  In her "mind" it can't possibly be because she's a moron with a grating personality.


----------



## GURPS

vraiblonde said:


> Well, what's she gonna say? In her "mind" it can't possibly be because she's a moron with a grating personality.




I have no clue ...... 

I merely pointing out the HUGE Blind Spot in her reasoning    ........   


my poll numbers suck because of sexism


Well Sugar you are in the Primary Season, so your numbers SUCK because Democrats are Sexist


----------



## Grumpy

Has Carlos Danger declared his candidacy yet?


----------



## Yooper

GURPS said:


> *Gillibrand Floundering Blames Sexism for low polling numbers*


Yay, excuses!

You get an excuse! You get an excuse! Everyone gets an excuse!

As I just posted in another thread, Cory Booker's supporters are now making excuses - oops, assertions - for Booker's poor polling in comparison to Buttigieg: Buttigieg's "white privilege."

Link: _‘The epitome of privilege’: Booker supporters seethe over Buttigieg mania_

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Merlin99

Yooper said:


> Let's if if I'm proved correct....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some black lawmakers are agonizing over whether to back Biden or two members of the close-knit caucus — Sens. Harris and Cory Booker — who also are vying for the White House, according to interviews with a dozen CBC members.
> 
> But with the former vice president jumping out to a huge, if early, lead in the polls, several CBC members are warming to the idea of a Biden-Harris ticket to take on President Donald Trump.
> 
> “That would be a dream ticket for me, a dream ticket!” said Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.). “If she is not the nominee, that would be a dream ticket for this country.”
> 
> Harris is everything the 76-year-old Biden is not. The freshman senator from California is younger, a woman and a person of color. As Biden gets dinged for his bipartisan bromides, Harris is winning applause from progressives for her merciless cross-examination of Trump officials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link: _‘A dream ticket’: Black lawmakers pitch Biden-Harris to beat Trump_
> --- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...

I've seen this play already McCain played the part of Biden and Sarah Palin played the Kamala Harris role. Good show once, but not worth seeing a second time.


----------



## Gilligan

Grumpy said:


> Has Carlos Danger declared his candidacy yet?



He's now fully erect and ready to plunge his......hat in to the ring.


----------



## Gilligan

Those lightweights gonna compete with this guy?..really??...I don't think so.


----------



## Merlin99

vraiblonde said:


> Trump would be a fool to dump Pence.  It's more likely that Pence can't stand the heat and will resign.


I don't think it's a matter of not standing the heat, Pence and Trump are radically differing personalities. I think if Pence had less grit he'd have left just because of it.


----------



## This_person

Merlin99 said:


> I've seen this play already McCain played the part of Biden and Sarah Palin played the Kamala Harris role. Good show once, but not worth seeing a second time.


Sarah Palin was an accomplished and experienced governor.  Kamala Harris is a first term senator who can't handle a committee position without embarrassing herself.  Not sure I could tell the difference between McCain and Biden, except McCain was a senior military officer and Biden was first deferred from service for being in college, and then for having asthma.


----------



## Bann

22AcaciaAve said:


> I agree with this.  I have said people dismissing Biden are doing so at their own peril.  Elections in today's polarized country are won in a hand full of swing states.  80% of the states are just about out of play.  More than that, the elections are won by winning the hand full of independent/moderate/crossover voters.  Biden represents a choice moderates might go for.   He is very popular in Pennsylvania and would probably flip that state.  The other far left nut jobs would not find getting support from moderates and independents so easy.  I think Trump himself knows this.  It's why he has been consulting with his campaign advisers and and asking what they know about Biden's plans for some time now.



The talking heads have been saying that even the DEMS are suprised that Joe's popularity is what it is right now.  It's worth noting that historically, the candidate who is "in the lead" in the poll numbers at this point in the race do not wind up being the nominee.  

I think if Biden starts to fall in the polls and out of favor he will find a reason he can't run, blaming family or some such.  I don't think his ego will allow him to tank too  much before dropping out. 

  It's all good for parlor game talk, though!


----------



## Bann

vraiblonde said:


> Well, what's she gonna say?  In her "mind" it can't possibly be because she's a moron with a grating personality.



She's got more air in her head than the Goodyear blimp!


----------



## Grumpy

vraiblonde said:


> Trump would be a fool to dump Pence.  It's more likely that Pence can't stand the heat and will resign.



Pence isn't going anywhere, I'm sure he doesn't have a favorable view of Trump's tactics but he is fully behind the results.


----------



## This_person

Grumpy said:


> Pence isn't going anywhere, I'm sure he doesn't have a favorable view of Trump's tactics but he is fully behind the results.


I think the non-favorable view of tactics but behind (many, if not most of) the results is shared by around 65,000,000 other citizens, give or take.


----------



## Grumpy

This_person said:


> I think the non-favorable view of tactics but behind (many, if not most of) the results is shared by around 65,000,000 other citizens, give or take.


Is this when I post the Captain Obvious pic??


----------



## vraiblonde

This_person said:


> I think the non-favorable view of tactics but behind (many, if not most of) the results is shared by around 65,000,000 other citizens, give or take.




I can't think what's not to like about Trump's tactics.  We've had wimpy Republicans who want to be "uniters", and look how that turned out.  Trump is nice to them until they start lashing out, then he verbally abuses them as they deserve.  What don't you like about that?


----------



## This_person

vraiblonde said:


> I can't think what's not to like about Trump's tactics.  We've had wimpy Republicans who want to be "uniters", and look how that turned out.  Trump is nice to them until they start lashing out, then he verbally abuses them as they deserve.  What don't you like about that?


In my humble opinion, he could be more politic and still get the message across.

Again, I'm not saying I dislike the overall message, but don't they say tact is the ability to tell people to go to hell and have them looking forward to the trip?

That is, however, a minimal concern.  I'm far more concerned with budgets and bump stocks than his lack of tact.


----------



## Bann

This_person said:


> I think the non-favorable view of tactics but behind (many, if not most of) the results is shared by around 65,000,000 other citizens, give or take.



I love his tactics!  He is just exactly what many Concervatives have been wanting for YEARS.  We've been saying for years how we wanted a candidate to "FIGHT back for our causes", and to "NOT TAKE THAT CRAP from the Dems, or to  "tell it like it is".

We finally got that, and I couldn't be happier!


----------



## vraiblonde

This_person said:


> In my humble opinion, he could be more politic and still get the message across.



That's been tried in the past to no avail.  Now it's time for the hammer.

Some people flat don't understand anything other than an ass kicking.  You can be nice, you can be tactful, you can be respectful...and at some point you're going to have punch their face to get your point across.  The Dems have that adolescent bully arrested development thing going on, and this President isn't afraid to meet them on their terms.  I respect that and appreciate it.  I support it wholeheartedly.


----------



## Yooper

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## GURPS

This_person said:


> who can't handle a committee position without embarrassing herself.




she got where she is today on her knees or on her back    ....


----------



## Hijinx

Bann said:


> I love his tactics!  He is just exactly what many Concervatives have been wanting for YEARS.  We've been saying for years how we wanted a candidate to "FIGHT back for our causes", and to "NOT TAKE THAT CRAP from the Dems, or to  "tell it like it is".
> 
> We finally got that, and I couldn't be happier!



I only wish he had a few Congressmen and Senators with a pair of balls as big as his.
If we had that we could MAGA.
He is backed up by wimps.Republicans afraid of their own shadows.
They should all be screaming for equal Justice for those who --so far-- have been treated as though they are above the law.


----------



## Kyle

Yooper said:


> View attachment 137145
> 
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


   Unfortunately a true reflection of the issue... but still


----------



## Kyle

vraiblonde said:


> The Dems have that *adolescent bully arrested development thing* going on, and this President isn't afraid to meet them on their terms.  I respect that and appreciate it.  I support it wholeheartedly.



Long past time for a purge.


----------



## GURPS

*Pete Buttigieg polling at 0% among black voters in South Carolina*


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-percent-among-black-voters-in-south-carolina


----------



## stgislander

GURPS said:


> *Pete Buttigieg polling at 0% among black voters in South Carolina*
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-percent-among-black-voters-in-south-carolina


Damn homophobes.


----------



## GURPS

IKR  ....... what do blacks have against a privileged white queer


----------



## Yooper

This_person said:


> Kamala Harris is a first term senator who can't handle a committee position without embarrassing herself.


Speaking of Kamala Harris....






--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Yooper

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Yooper

Creepy Joe Biden's turn:






--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## vraiblonde

So far the least buffoonish is Kamala Harris.   Except for that lie about listening to Tupac before he was invented, she's managed to remain fairly inoffensive from a moderate Democrat viewpoint.  But I'm pretty sure at this point that Biden will get the nomination, which would be a mistake because he comes across as weak and doddering.  He won't beat Trump.

Plus the Democrat Party is having some internal problems.  Normally they're all in lockstep, but the NKOTB have shaken it up and now all bets are off.  In their zeal to out Socialist each other in the primary, they've forgotten that one of them will have to run in the general election.  And Socialism is a nonstarter with most Americans.


----------



## glhs837

Was hearing blather about "Whole Life Democrats" "Cradle to Grave". Leaving aside, or course, you have to survive to make it the cradle to be entitiled.......


----------



## gary_webb

It's still too early for the "Draft Hillary" lunatic fringe to show their hands. So until they have their pity party next July, never say never! 
She'll never win of course, but they've got to


----------



## Kyle




----------



## Yooper

Irony (in this case, sick) is obviously something Senator Warren doesn't understand.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## SamSpade

vraiblonde said:


> But I'm pretty sure at this point that Biden will get the nomination, which would be a mistake because he comes across as weak and doddering.  He won't beat Trump.



He doesn't get how the party works anymore. For example, he really doesn't get how trying to explain that he is able to reach across
the aisle so effectively, he was able to work even with segregationists - to him, even working with odious members of Congress shows
his ability to deal with others. Such was the House and Senate - of the 70's and 80's.

To the party _GASP_ - you mean you actually tried to work a deal with - (clutching pearls) - those segregationists! 
You actually touched their hands and breathed their air. Apologize! Now!

His point was actually very good. If he can compromise and work with those guys, he certainly can deal with 
communist dictators and despotic mullahs. But that's not their takeaway - ANY departure from dogma is heresy.
You don't compromise with the ENEMY. You steamroll over their carcasses.

Long gone are the "it's not personal" days when Tip O'Neill could be friends with Reagan.


----------



## Hijinx

SamSpade said:


> He doesn't get how the party works anymore. For example, he really doesn't get how trying to explain that he is able to reach across
> the aisle so effectively, he was able to work even with segregationists - to him, even working with odious members of Congress shows
> his ability to deal with others. Such was the House and Senate - of the 70's and 80's.
> 
> To the party _GASP_ - you mean you actually tried to work a deal with - (clutching pearls) - those segregationists!
> You actually touched their hands and breathed their air. Apologize! Now!
> 
> His point was actually very good. If he can compromise and work with those guys, he certainly can deal with
> communist dictators and despotic mullahs. But that's not their takeaway - ANY departure from dogma is heresy.
> You don't compromise with the ENEMY. You steamroll over their carcasses.
> 
> Long gone are the "it's not personal" days when Tip O'Neill could be friends with Reagan.



Biden will do great withthe Democrats because he will do exactly what they tell him to do. He doesn't have an original idea in his whole head.
He will be a puppet----------------and that's what they want.


----------



## vraiblonde

Time to revisit!

Now who do we think will get the Dem nomination?

I got nothin'.  I can't see any of them advancing.  If Bloomberg does decide to get off the fence and take a swing, he's probably their best bet.


----------



## Kyle

vraiblonde said:


> Time to revisit!
> 
> Now who do we think will get the Dem nomination?


It’s not too late for them to pick a winner and go with Trump!


----------

